September 4, 2009 8:34 AM

Seniors in Poverty at 19%, New Study Shows

By
CBSNews
(AP)  The official poverty rate for Americans 65 years and older has stood for years at 10 percent, the lowest rate among age groups. But the true rate could be nearly twice that high, according to a revised formula created by the National Academy of Sciences that is gaining favor among public officials, including some in the Obama administration.

The NAS formula would put the poverty rate for older Americans at 18.6 percent, or 6.8 million people, compared with 9.7 percent, or 3.6 million people, under the existing measure. The original government formula, created in 1955, doesn't take account of rising costs of medical care and other factors.

"It's a hidden problem," said Robin Talbert, president of the AARP Foundation, which provides job training and support to low-income seniors and is backing legislation that would adopt the NAS formula. "There are still many millions of older people on the edge, who don't have what they need to get by."

If the academy's formula is adopted, a more refined picture of American poverty could emerge that would capture everyday costs of necessities besides just food. The result could upend long-standing notions of those in greatest need and lead eventually to shifts in how billions of federal dollars for the poor are distributed for health, housing, nutrition and child-care benefits.

The overall official poverty rate would increase, from 12.5 percent to 15.3 percent, for a total of 45.7 million people, according to rough calculations by the Census Bureau. Data on all segments, not only the elderly, would be affected:

- The rate for children under 18 in poverty would decline slightly, to 17.9 percent.

- Single mothers and their children, who disproportionately receive food stamps, would see declines in the rates of poverty because noncash aid would be taken into account. Low-income people who are working could see increases in poverty rates, a reflection of transportation and child-care costs.

- Cities with higher costs of living, such as New York, Chicago and San Francisco, would see higher poverty rates, while more rural areas in the Midwest and South might see declines.

- The rate for extreme poverty, defined as income falling below 50 percent of the poverty line, would decrease due to housing and other noncash benefits.

- Immigrant poverty rates would go up, due to transportation costs and lower participation in government aid programs.

The changes have been discussed quietly for years in academic circles, and both Democrats and Republicans agree that the decades-old White House formula, which is based on a 1955 cost of an emergency food diet, is outdated.

The current calculation sets the poverty level at three times the annual cost of groceries. For a family of four that is $21,203. That calculation does not factor in rising medical, transportation, child care and housing expenses or geographical variations in living costs. Nor does the current formula consider noncash aid when calculating income, despite the recent expansion of food stamps and tax credits in the federal economic stimulus and other government programs. The result: The poverty rate has varied little from its current 12.5 percent.

Next week, the Census Bureau will publish official poverty figures for 2008 with a cautionary note about the shortcomings. The agency says it will expedite release of alternative numbers in the following weeks, because of the interest expressed by lawmakers and the Obama administration in seeing a fuller range of numbers.

"The current poverty measure does a very bad job of measuring the impact of quite a few of our anti-poverty policies," Rebecca Blank, the Commerce Department's undersecretary of economic affairs, said in an interview. "It isn't meaningless, but it isn't complete."

Although the White House Office of Management and Budget dictates how federal poverty is measured, legislation pending in Congress would require use of the National Academy approach. Advocates are hoping the White House may act on its own.

Cities are already showing interest.

In New York City, roughly one in three senior citizens fell below the poverty line after Mayor Michael Bloomberg adopted the new formula last year; state officials in Albany, New York, plan to publish their revised numbers next month. Los Angeles, Miami, Washington, San Francisco and Chicago also have been considering a switch.

When New York City changed to the new formula, a smaller percentage of children fell below the poverty line, particularly those living in single-parent homes. Residents 65 and over in poverty nearly doubled, from 18.1 percent to 32 percent.

Bloomberg, who previously pushed for cuts in programs for the elderly, now is advocating pilot programs for older residents that would reduce taxi costs, provide free bus service to get to grocery stores and offer legal aid to those at risk of eviction from their homes.

"Under this up-to-date measure, you understand that government programs have had a beneficial impact on households with single parents and children," said Linda Gibbs, New York's deputy mayor for health and human services. She expressed concern that as the official measure becomes increasingly outdated, it is redirecting social programs and funding away from the people who may need it the most.

"We wanted to look at poverty with a finer view in New York City and have an impact," Gibbs said.

Nationally, official poverty rates for older Americans have improved significantly over the past 30 years due to expansions of Social Security and Supplemental Security Income. But many older people with modest cash incomes would fall below the poverty line under the NAS formula due to out-of-pocket expenses from rising Medicare premiums, deductibles and a coverage gap in the prescription drug benefit that is known as the "doughnut hole."

The NAS figures could take on added significance at a time when the government is touting an overhaul of Medicare and Social Security as its best hope for reducing the ballooning federal debt. With the potential to add more older Americans to the ranks of the poor, the numbers may underscore a need for continued - if not expanded - old-age benefits as a government safety net.

Advocates for updating the formula note that Barack Obama indicated during the presidential campaign that he supported an improved measure as part of a broader strategy to reduce poverty.

Simon Norwood of Little Rock, Ark., 56, says he's still keeping faith in that promise. A lifelong construction worker who receives food stamps, Norwood hasn't had regular work for months once jobs dried up in the housing meltdown. He doesn't dare to think about getting sick or injured because he doesn't know whether he could cover the expenses. Now working a part-time, minimum-wage job, Norwood said it doesn't matter to him how the poverty numbers are sliced so long as people get a fair shake at getting assistance.

"I often tell my son, 'You've got to save your money. Live within your means,"' he said. "Because you never know when things might take a turn."

AP
Add a Comment See all 27 Comments
by erasmus111 September 4, 2009 6:44 PM EDT
by andylance1 September 4, 2009 9:31 AM EDT
I am an economic refugee living in Mexico and part of the 1.2 million Americans living in Mexico.


Hmmmmm, is that why Mexico is now having so many problems?
Reply to this comment
by reveal5 September 4, 2009 6:38 PM EDT
Presidential approval ratings numbers are up this week. 56% according to Ipsos/McClatchy and CBS. Y'all Republican senior protest types had a few good weeks. Looks like it is over. America is figuring you folks out. Republicans raised in the 1940's and 1950's with lingering racism trying to turn back the clock of history. Republican senior racists telling all good Americans to stand on their own two feet and fighting socialism...while receiving a return on Medicare that is almost 3 times your individual investments and having the bulk of your medical bills paid by the American taxpayer. Republican seniors who do not care about the suffering and dying in America and seem to suffer from generational narcissism. Yeah, y'all got a lot of attention for a little while. Your 15 minutes so to speak. All the townhall foolishness got you a lot of "press." 'Course the press you fringe folks are now getting is eliciting one word from commentators on the left and right. That word is "INSANE."
Reply to this comment
by reveal5 September 4, 2009 6:27 PM EDT
One word is now commonly being used from talking heads on both the left and right to describe the viewpoints and tactics of the far right fringe in America. That word is ..."INSANE."
Reply to this comment
by erasmus111 September 4, 2009 5:25 PM EDT
by johnbbrown8888 September 4, 2009 10:05 AM EDT
Please, please move away. And take your majesty with you.

I'm sure there are wonderful opportunities for you in Paraguay.


Sometimes you can be a real ass. But times like this, I can forgive you for it. : )
Reply to this comment
by erasmus111 September 4, 2009 5:22 PM EDT
by Questionews September 4, 2009 12:20 PM EDT
I have a friend (Seattle resident)that works in Alaska for 7 months out of the year on halibut & cod boats & lives the rest of the year in Manzanillo. He makes about $80,000 a year, but lives quite well. He bought a house (1000 yards from the beach!) that would cost $300,000 or more in the states for $65,000. He is able to pay for housekeepers & a cook. Spends his free time hanging out on the beach & works on his paintings. He's a lousy painter but he really doesn't care, he enjoys it Even after all that he's still able to bank about $25,000 a year. The Mexico plan is something that many are looking into. Just stay away from border areas.


So you live in Seattle? So does BarbaraM. I should come for a visit. : )
Reply to this comment
by notsouthern September 4, 2009 3:19 PM EDT
by steeepe
Let's get rid of social security and Medicare! Government-run programs reek of socialism

Governemt run programs are far more competent with a Democrat in the White House. You anarchists are so full of a life of delusions that your eyes are brown (as *****). Americans will take socialism over your southern fascist idiotology anyday. Fact is, 65% of Americans want socialism in some form or another. Thus, you anarchists remain on the most extreme reicht side of the US political spectrum. No wonder we consider you and your kind as skin heads, your roots are in Nazism.
Reply to this comment
by retiredgustav September 4, 2009 4:11 PM EDT
Reminds me of a discussion I had with a friend of mine who is 65+. He was talking about all of this socialism and then I asked him if he was sending back his social security money and paying his own doctor bills.
End of discussion. As for me I went to the inaugeration on a gov. rail system (amtrak). On my returned I left from a gov. funded airport, on a plane that was directed by gov. controlers and landed at an airport once again built by the gov. I could go on and on about how much our gov. does, but my fingers get tired.
by grannyrd1 September 4, 2009 3:12 PM EDT
With all the comments about Social Security and getting rid of it. How many said get rid of the banks when billions were used to help out the banks who lost all their money, get rid of the Auto Industry when billions of our dollars went to stimulate their economy. There has been stimulus money given, over 3 billion dollars for "Cash for Clunkers" and everybody grab for their piece of the pie and yet those of us who depend on Social Security that was promised to us years and years ago aren't going to get any cost of living raises for the next two years. Our senior citizens I guess just aren't worth it. If you all want to debate who did what that is fine, but this article has to do with people like me who struggle to pay the rent, buy groceries or get medicines needed for ills that come as you get older. I want to thank all of you for your heart and compassion.
Reply to this comment
by reveal5 September 4, 2009 6:26 PM EDT
Seniors don't get "cost of living" increases when the "cost of living" is decreasing due to deflation, like this year.
by steeepe September 4, 2009 2:04 PM EDT
Let's get rid of social security and Medicare! Government-run programs reek of socialism, and in this country, it's every man for himself. Sink or swim. You get sick, too bad, loser. The government can't do anything right. Let private companies run things. Private armies, private health care, private retirement plans, private police and fire departments. You don't pay, you get no protection. No government regulations and all the "free" trade you can stand! What a country!!
Reply to this comment
by jumkey September 4, 2009 11:56 AM EDT
19%? Let's do away with Social Security and Medicare like the Republicans want then.

Republicans HATE programs that benefit average Americans, they HATE any program where Americans get back what they paid in.
Reply to this comment
by Sloughfoot September 4, 2009 11:25 AM EDT
If you don't like the numbers-change the formula. Special interest groups have been doing that ever since the first numbers were etched in stone.
Reply to this comment
See all 27 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook